He See's Someones Cards

[David Sklansky]

Here is a nice question, the answer to which I haven't thought about and will not necessarily think about anytime soon. But it is a good exercise in poker thinking, so I pose it to generate some discussion.

You are an expert player and are playing in a tough game with other good players. You realize that one of the players can see a third player's cards. No one else realizes this. Does that advantage more than make up for your disadvantage? Might it depend on, the game, the number of total players, which seats they are in (assume they are sitting next to each other), or whether the player whose cards can be seen is a live one or not (assume the player who sees the cards is an expert who will make use of his information but won't make it obvious)?

[Unknown Soldier]

I think the advantage makes up for your disadvantage. The reaosn being that you know what they're doing, and they don't know that you know. It's a bit like multiple-level thinking, and you're one level ahead of your opponents.

As for the number of players, I haven't thought about that and nothing instinctively comes to mind. I guess the more players the better? Because you know more then they know so have an edge over more people, not sure about that one!

Having them seated to your imediate right will be the best place. But I think you have an advantage reagrdless.

[George Rice]

You haven't thought about the answer?

Didn't you ask this, or a similar question, several years ago?

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the advantage makes up for your disadvantage. The reaosn being that you know what they're doing, and they don't know that you know. It's a bit like multiple-level thinking, and you're one level ahead of your opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you a trivial situation where you're still screwed. You're playing Limit Hold'em, perhaps 5-handed, and the guy 3 to your right can see the hole cards of the guy 2 to your right (in other words, directly to his left). Now whenever you are BB, the cutoff (CO) in essence becomes the button, and his stealing range goes way up. Your only "advantage" is that you know the CO is on a button steal range. You are hosed.

I haven't thought about it, but I doubt you can make up the equity when he's SB, or UTG, etc.

[Eponymous]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the advantage makes up for your disadvantage. The reaosn being that you know what they're doing, and they don't know that you know. It's a bit like multiple-level thinking, and you're one level ahead of your opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]
You know what they're doing, but you don't know why they're doing it because you don't know either of their cards. For example, the player whose cards are seen raises on the button preflop. The cheater is in the SB and reraises. You are in the BB with AJ. What do you do? One possibility is the button was making a steal attempt and the SB knew this and knew his otherwise marginal hand had him dominated. Your AJ could easily be the best hand. But another possibility is that the button had a strong hand and the SB had a monster. Your AJ could be dominated by one or even both. So even though you know what the SB is doing, since you don't know why, I don't see it as being a big enough advantage to make up the disadvantage.

Maybe this example is too contrived, but I think it will usually be the case that you see what the cheater is doing, but you don't know whether it's in reaction to the other player being strong or weak, bluffing or value betting, or whatever the scenario might be.

[Unknown Soldier]

I misread the question; I thought the players are colluding.

Well that changes everything, I'll need to think about it. I imagine it will depend on the number of players involved. The more players, the better your advantage I'd say. Becuase you know more then they do, and thus have an advantage over them. I think there will be a point where the number of players in the game will make up for the cheaters advantage over you.

As for the position the cheater has to be on your right, because you only have that information when he's acting before you.

....more to come!

[CityFan]

Say it was a stud game. I can see the cheater's board, he has paired his door card. The player who's cards he can see makes a raise with a suited board, and the cheater folds...

I can make inferences about the third player's cards based on the cheater's actions. In this case, I think he has a made flush.

[keith123]

I think it makes up for your disadvantage easily. YOU have the biggest advantage at the table.

Player A (the sucker) knows nothing except that Player B (the cheater) always seems to outplay him.

Player B can always outplay Player A, but has no idea what you have. And Player B has no idea that you know he can see A's cards.

You know that if Player B and Player A are in the hand, then Player B has the better hand or a very live draw that he will likely be paid off for.

I think I'd rather be 3 handed with them. You probably need to limp into most pots and let those 2 dictate the action. Ideally, you'd be sitting directly after Player B.

Anytime Player B folds and you have a marginal hand, you fold as well. Preflop, there probably won't be many hands that Player B folds except for total junk hands where he wouldn't want to be in the pot with you, and when Player A has a monster. Unless you've got a pretty strong hand, you might as well fold too, because what Player B does on the flop is great information to have.

Anytime Player B folds and you have a real strong hand, you'll probably be able to outplay Player A, since you can put him on at least a fairly strong hand (Player B probably wouldn't fold any lousy hand as long as Player A's hand was easily beatable). Plus if you have a nut type hand, you'll probably get a ton of Player A's chips considering Player A will know the only player he can ever beat is you, and he won't want to fold a strong hand when it's down to the two of you.

When Player B raises, assuming you are right after him, you should probably call with medium strength hands and better. If Player A also calls or re-raises, then Player B clearly has a monster, and you should get out. If Player A folds, then you don't necessarily have to put Player B on a great hand. If your hand was good enough that you'd consider calling or re-raising based on Player B's bet alone (and without extra information), then you should feel even more confident in making that move now.

Hands where Player B is just calling will be tougher to figure out. Clearly if Player A is in the hand, Player B either has him beat (and isn't worried about a draw...no implied odds!), or Player B is on a cheap draw and feels pretty confident that A will pay him off if B hits the draw. I would have to think in most cases, Player B would at least have Player A outkicked, and likely if Player A is doing the betting, they each have at least a pair (I doubt A would bluff B too much when he is getting his butt handed to him). If you've got top pair or better, raise the pot and see where you stand. If player A calls and player B folds, you've got to feel pretty good that you have player A beat. Player B couldn't have had too much (and probably wouldn't be on a draw since he wouldn't fold into a 3 way pot to a feeler raise with a good draw, although he could fold an ok hand here just to avoid getting in a big pot with you). And if Player B didn't have to much but still had Player A beat, then we can feel pretty good that Player A doesnt have too much (although he might be on a draw). A either thinks your bluffing or is on a draw.

If you raise in that situation and both players call or either one raises, you are in trouble, but not in as much trouble as Player A if B calls him.

If you don't have a hand when player B calls A's raise, then it will be even an easier fold than it would be without information.

Player B is also going to have to let Player A wins some hands, and probably let him win some hands where A is completely bluffing. But that should only help your odds. If Player A bluff raises, and B calls, you will fold unless you've got the nuts or near it anyway, and if Player A raises and B folds, you'll be even better off than you would be if you assumed that B would never lay down to a bluff.

[Beavis68]

Fixed your title

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

Fixed your title

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that if a random person disagrees with David Sklansky on the use of an apostrophe, David Sklansky must be right.